Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-08-03


Judge Buckley's morning levee was as
interesting as usual, and the lobby was
crowded with all sorts of people.
The case of T. Blauth, charged with
violating city ordinance No. Il, went oyer
for two days, to give Major Anderson time
TO examine the case. similar case
against Mr.. Hill was dismissed on pay
ment of costs.
For lack of prosecuting witnesses, the
charge Of vagrancy against Mary Frissell
was dismissed.
Robert Dolan, spruce looking young
man, appeared in the dock charged by his
brother with vagrancy. Robert looked as
if he might be a stockbroker or person
who lived on bank account. His brother
did not desire to prosecute the case, and
the City Attorney asked that the charge
against Dolan be dismissed The Court so
ordered, but Robert stated for the informa-
ton Of the Court that he was the victim of
whlm of his brothers, superipduced by
too much indulgence in the flowing bowl
Louise Monani had disturbed the peace
Of q young man named MulGoon.' She
spit at him and swore at him in French
Friday night, which raised his German ire
until he caused her arrest. The Judge be-
Geved Muld0on's" story and ordered the
kA&UA4 AsuulSt 10 appear IDT sentence.
L. Grouse, q boyish-looking Young man
+ Tas assessed 50 for getting drunk and
creating an unusual disturbance He asked
10 he excused Just this once" but the
Court thought the otfense too fragrant to be
passed.
The case Of grand larceny against B. B.
Brown in which William Henley appeared
as prosecuting witness, was called. Mr..
Henley took the stand and briefly stated
that the otfense complained of occurred
July 9th, at the State House, B. g. Brown
being the proprietor. Defendant and his
employees had entered the room occupied
by Mrs. and Mrs. Henley during their
absence, and taken therefrom two Trunks
one overcoat, three dresses, one album and
four hats, all of the value of 500 or more
Brown had told witness that he had taken
the articles. Witness acknowledged, on
cross examination, his Indebtedness TO Mr.
Brown, but did not know Browns motive
in taking the goods, but supposed Brown
thought he had right to do
So The facts above stated were
admitted by the defendants counsel,
Mr.. Brown was placed on the stand to
show that he took the property with no
criminal intent. He had served written
notice on Mr.. Henley and also gave him
verbal notice to pay up or get out. He
took the baggage for no purpose but to
secure payment of the bill due from Mr..
Henley; offered to return the baggage, if
The bill was paid. Had given him notice
one morning while he was in bed to vacate
and iegYe the baggage until the bill was
paid Had told Mrs. Henley he wanted the
key, as he intended to take the baggage for
the board bill. The reason he gave the
notice while Henley was in bed was be-
cause the prosecuting witness sneaked in
and out and he had no chance to see
him otherwise. Mr.. Henley was put on
the stand by the defense, and asked to
produce letter sent 10 him by defendant
Brown. Mr.. Henley made several remarks
that caused Mr.. Gett to ask him II
he was witness or attorney in the case. The
letter was not read. Mr.. Henley denied
that he sneaked in the house; had gone
there at all hours, day and night, usually
passing through the Office. Witness had
not tried very hard to meet Mr.. Brown
however, because he did not wish to be
tackled about that little bill" Mr.. Hen.
ley and the City Attorney argued for the
prosecution. and Messrs. Wharton and
Gett for the defense. The Court rendered
d lengthy decision. and held that defend.
ant was not guilty.